@vorleser @DrTCombs
Sure we do, for example bulldozers. But they are not used to drive us to the nearest supermarket.

@SpookieRobieTheCat @DrTCombs And they sell, which tells us what?

@morb_au I asked the same question of the property management company (it was their truck) and they responded that "it was important business; surely you understand"

@DrTCombs it's not like the street was narrow... and the more I look at it ... pointing the wrong way

@TomRaftery nope!

@DrTCombs 🙄
That's a huge issue for folks who are disabled

@DrTCombs I'd like to expand on this. I think that a tax in some form, whether it be insurance rates or an actual tax, should be placed on high displacement vehicles. Obviously there would be exemptions for farm and commercial use. I'm not in favor of bans but a punitive levy is more the way to go. If you want one of these vehicle's you can still have one, but you're going to pay.

@MxAlba @DrTCombs I wouldn't agree with you, in Europe this is becoming a problem too with expansion of crossovers and SUVs which are killing small hatchbacks and estates/sedans.

@FinalKiwi @DrTCombs Well, I agree with you there. But I doubt they could grow to be the monsters you see in the US given that those monsters would simply not fit on our roads and parking lots. :) But yeah, maybe EU regulation would be a good thing. And I think EU legislation around limitations on vehicle weight are in the making.

@MxAlba @DrTCombs There are already some EU legislations, but they favour SUV's and bigger cars instead of hatchback and estates, mostly because SUVs don't save so strict emissions standards which makes them more profitable for car companies

@tkenben I don't believe I've ever encountered this pushback, and I work in this space every day. There's definitely evidence that large passenger vehicles, esp. trucks and SUVs, are involved in far more fatal crashes than smaller vehicles. But logic also helps...

@tkenben Large vehicles make it less likely a driver will see a pedestrian, because of their height. They make it less likely a driver will be able to stop or swerve to avoid a pedestrian, because of their mass. They make it more likely a pedestrian they hit will be killed, because of their kinetic energy and because the tall grille pushes pedestrians' bodies under the vehicle, rather than over the top.

@tkenben I much prefer my daughter's chances with a teenager in a loud honda civic than a distracted soccer mom in a ford expedition.

@DrTCombs They might agree with the tall grill argument, but not the momentum/kinetic energy, because high mass also make it harder to accelerate (and KE is prop to V^2). But with the tall grill, we must then thumbs down public transportation as it stands. Or is the tradeoff different there?

@tkenben slow to accelerate means slow to decelerate as well, but acceleration is a strawman because (a) F150s are not running the same size engines as accords; today's SUVs and pickup trucks have more than enough torque to accelerate as quickly as most passenger cars, and (b) acceleration is only a small part of operating a vehicle

@tkenben I've truly never heard these arguments in good faith before. They are strawmen.

@DrTCombs Yes, I am playing devils' advocate, perhaps foolishly. I brought up velocity, because their argument would be that mass doesn't really matter once a vehicle is up to speed. I disagree myself. Personally, I don't have a big opinion because my instinct tells me that large vehicles don't contribute to the majority of fatalities or injuries *because* they are large. Vehicles are dangerous to being with. I would have to see the data to be convinced of a direct correlation.

@tkenben

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars
https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/the-troubling-tie-between-bigger-cars-and-pedestrian-deaths-c82a0ee8dc0b
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2021.100219
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.06.005

@tkenben You may think you are playing devil's advocate here, but you are also discounting the expertise of a female academic with decades of experience, demanding a personalized explanation by presenting absurd counterarguments that hold no water among people who work in this field, and insisting on seeing the data yourself.

Fine. Here's the data: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars

@DrTCombs I am just being wary. Maybe a bit juvenile, and I apologize. But the picture tugged the wrong strings for me, as it screamed sensationalistic journalism.

@DrTCombs Thank you very much! This speaks to me much more loudly than a picture of a small girl in front of a looming grill.

@tkenben @DrTCombs
e=mc squared

When a collision occurs the impact increases by weight multiplied by the square of the speed.

When you can't see what's around you and are less agile, to me it is intuitive that you are more likely to experience collisions.

Google and you will see that the stats agree.

@piemanmastodon @DrTCombs Right on both accounts. The argument would have been that since mass greatly prohibits acceleration that would overall counteract the lack of agility. But, it's moot. A car is dangerous regardless of how big it is, a less agile one more so.

@DrTCombs @tkenben Is there any evidence to support the assertion that larger vehicles will be going slower than a smaller car?

With the heavier weight and beefier suspension, I think the ride is actually smoother in a bigger vehicle, which encourages people to drive faster.

@Kyleric @DrTCombs I still end up thinking the actual momentum and kinetic energy ends up being moot if the speed is more than a few miles an hour. The big thing then is maneuverability. The argument for anti high grill of course is that a lower speed injury can be more dangerous because of impact location.

@tkenben @DrTCombs Even if they banned the high grill design, heavier cars are still going to collide with more force at the same speed, which in the 20- 50mph range is going to mean a higher chance of death. Above 50 and below 20 you might be right and it will matter less, but there are a lot of crashes happening in that 20-50 mph range.

@Kyleric @DrTCombs They don't collide with more force. They have more momentum, yes, but that doesn't really matter because the mass difference is too lopsided to begin with. If you are talking two vehicles of comparable mass then it becomes very important. But with a car versus a pedestrian... the car doesn't slow down enough no matter the size. What matters then is how much energy is absorbed by any structural deformation.

@Kyleric @DrTCombs SAlso, in what way that energy is dissipated (time span of impact, distribution of forces, etc.).

@BobCollins very true indeed.